Trump ordered US drone strike that killed Iran general Qassem Suleimani

Until the 17th century or thereabouts, the Islamic word was still at least on par with Europe in the sciences. And that includes the Ottoman empire. Up to that point, you still had earlier works by Persian Muslim scholars such as Avicenna, Rhazes and Khwarizmi, serve as standard text for teaching subjects such as medicine and mathematics in European universities.

 

Ol' Bone Spurs was playing golf when the action went down.

 

They were invaded by Syrians...that is Sunnis, and Obama opened the door for Iran to fill the void, just like he opened the door for Russia to fill the void after the line was crossed by Assad. Knowing the concept of strategic balance, it made no sense to pay Iran a penny at a time when Sunnis were going to be fighting Sunnis (ISIS).

 

Good, It shows that he is a real leader who doesn't have to ride in a tank like Dukakis...or sit around in a situation room micromanaging the taking down of the "Tall Man."

 

The two basic problems in the ME are oil and Israel and reconciling the two. Oil will fade in importance; Israel won't. Strategically, Israel needs a significant presence by the United States, in the region. Unfortunately, that goal runs in direct opposition to popular opinion in the U.S., which sees no real reason to be there. Caught between the rock and the hard place, Trump has apparently decided on "chaos," then we'll just wait and see where that takes us.

 

Any human mind that tolerates tyranny to spare blood, will drown in the rivers of blood the tyrants create. One of us is defending and respecting life, but you aren’t even close.

 

Absolutely not! I guess you missed my earlier comments.... I have absolutely no issue at all with the outcome... I mean by all means eradicate the planet of bellends like this guy. My issue is with the methodology and potentially the motive involved.
Plus the inane use of twitface to carry on American foreign policy I mean some of the tweeting is infantile... which I guess is what his base can relate to....
Anyway it all smacks of grandstanding to a domestic audience rather than the pragmatic use of assets. I fear that there are going to be a lot of innocent lives lost in order to feed a mentally unbalanced American president masturbating over his Twitter account.

 

What "line" are you talking about? Do you even know?

 

Our troops didn't kill anywhere near that many, and sad thing is, you know it is true. Instead of dealing with the rot in the heart of your people, you blame all outside interference. It is no different than the Catholics and the Protestants in Ireland, they have nobody to blame but themselves. Nobody made Iran and Iraq go to war, the French didn't when they helped their man off the plane:


Air France is so nice.

“Glory be to the Bomb, and to the Holy Fallout. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be. World without end. Amen.”

We would never have went there if your love of dictatorships and terror proxies hadn't made us go:

July 1997, South Movement, "the path of Jihad and proper action": "Those who desire to face up to the Zionists conspiracies, intransigence, and aggressiveness must proceed towards the advance centers of capabilities in the greater Arab homeland and to the centers of the knowledge, honesty and sincerity with whole heartiness if the aim was to implement a serious plan to save others from their dilemma or to rely on those capable centers; well-known for their positions regarding the enemy, to gain precise concessions from it with justified maneuvers even if such centers including Baghdad not in agreement with those concerned, over the objectives and aims of the required maneuvers." (On the 29th anniversary of Iraq's national day (the 17th of July 1968 revolution). President Saddam Hussein made an important comprehensive and nation wide address) http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/countries/Iraq/speech.htm

 

So, you agree with the proposition that in respect to U.S. interests in the ME, it's all about Oil and Israel?

 

If it was all about oil, there would be no Israel, if it was all about Israel, we would never have put any troops on the ground and we would just bomb them from space. The French probably delivered their man to Iran, after he was kicked out of Iraq, because of the oil embargo. Carter probably created the mujahedeen because of oil. They ran out of villages to burn in Darfur because of Chinese oil. Strategic resources play a part in many decisions, but all of the deaths in the Middle East can be attributed to ISLAM.

(3) Narrated 'Urwa on the authority of 'Aisha: On the days of Mina, (11th, 12th, and 13th of Dhul-Hijjah) Abu Bakr came to her while two young girls were beating the tambourine and the Prophet was lying covered with his clothes. Abu Bakr scolded them and the Prophet uncovered his face and said to Abu Bakr, "Leave them, for these days are the days of 'Id and the days of Mina." 'Aisha further said, "Once the Prophet was screening me and I was watching the display of black slaves in the Mosque and ('Umar) scolded them. The Prophet said, 'Leave them. O Bani Arfida! (carry on), you are safe (protected)'." (Book #15, Hadith #103)

Back then the strategic resource was slaves, and they didn't have oil.

 

If you violate the rules that flagrantly, you can expect to be called out, by any member. And I doubt you've been here 60 years.

 

Okay boomer.

 

It's not an "either/or proposition." It's the combination of Oil and Israel. I am sure the religious factor plays a critical part of the equation as well...but religious hierarchies using religious beliefs to retain power over their constituencies probably pre-dates political "authorities" who do the same.

 

Most Shiites voted to expel U.S. troops. Many Sunni and Kurdish legislators did not attend the session. Sounds like one party, or sect, trying to completely steamroll the other just because they have the majority.

 

The only reason Israel is even mentioned is because Islam is built upon them joining to make Islam legitimate:

"111a. The Jews in Arabia sided with the enemies of Islåm in their endeavour to extirpate the new religion, and this notwithstanding their pact with the Muslims, but they were not successful in inflicting any serious harm upon the Muslims, and whenever they openly faced the Muslims they fled. As the concluding words show, the idolaters, who gave them secret promises of help, never came to their aid when they were in distress."

112a. Almost the same words, excluding the exception, occur in 2:61. The Jews had already been subjected to the greatest humiliation and disgrace before the appearance of the Prophet. But with the advent of Islåm they could better their condition either by accepting the covenant of Allåh, by which is meant the acceptance of Islåm, or by making a compact of security with such men as could give them protection. This remains true to this day." http://www.muslim.org/english-quran/index.htm

“[2.40] O children of Israel! call to mind My favor which I bestowed on you and be faithful to (your) covenant with Me, I will fulfill (My) covenant with you; and of Me, Me alone, should you be afraid.
[2.41] And believe in what I have revealed, verifying that which is with you, and be not the first to deny it, neither take a mean price in exchange for My communications; and Me, Me alone should you fear.
[2.42] And do not mix up the truth with the falsehood, nor hide the truth while you know (it).
[2.43] And keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and bow down with those who bow down.”

“[2.83] And when We made a covenant with the children of Israel: You shall not serve any but Allah and (you shall do) good to (your) parents, and to the near of kin and to the orphans and the needy, and you shall speak to men good words and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate. Then you turned back except a few of you and (now too) you turn aside.”

How do you steal land, and claim it is righteous, remove the previous covenant, see above.

As for Oil, none existed the first time we fought there over abused pilgrims.

Religion is the only factor for the deaths.

No oil here either:

“In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring ‘concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury’, the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. [19]

Jefferson reported the conversation to Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay, who submitted the Ambassador's comments and offer to Congress. Jefferson argued that paying tribute would encourage more attacks. Although John Adams agreed with Jefferson, he believed that circumstances forced the U.S. to pay tribute until an adequate navy could be built.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

 

Since you didn't address my comment even though you quoted it, I take it you agree with me that @AFM is wrong.

Do you have more than speculation this was Obama's motive for removing forces in Anbar province?

Irrelevant to Iraq.

"We?" Who would make such an absurd claim?

 

Israel today owes its existence to the break-up of the Ottoman Empire following WW I and the Balfour Declaration, whereby the British committed to a Jewish homeland. I believe the major ME oil fields were discovered during WW II in U.S. & British geological surveys, which led to the Western conclusion that there were natural resources there that made Western hegemony in the region worth pursuing. That led to the Israeli "western foothold," and the manipulation and placement of various pro-western dictatorships throughout the region. These usually involved secular or semi-secular former or present military leaders who favored western dollars over USSR rubles. The Cold War began, by most historical accounts, in Iran, when Stalin initially refused to pull Soviet WW II troops out of Iran, who were there to guard the supply line from the West to the USSR during WW II.

Truman became the first foreign leader to recognize the State of Israel on a de facto basis (it is what it is basis). A day or so later, the USSR recognized the State of Israel on a de jure basis (a legal right basis). In 1956, a British, French and Israeli consortium seized the Suez Canal. The U.S., under Eisenhower, opposed the seizure and supported U.N. resolutions for the return of the Canal to the Egyptians and withdrawal of British, French and Israeli forces.

I suspect that it was shortly after that failure of the United States to stand with Israel that the Israelis began their own nuclear weapon development, seeing U.S. opposition to the seizure of the Canal, a sign that U.S. ME policy might not always coincide with Israeli interests and they needed to take steps toward their own self-defense, in a region wherein they were sounded by potential and probable enemies. The successful development of nuclear weapons drives Israeli military strategy, IMO, today.

The principal advantage to possessing nuclear weapons, unless one is truly mad, is "deterrence." IOW, no one will attack you in an existential sense, if they know that such an attack will cause your opponent to retaliate with nuclear weapons against you. There is one caveat to that proposition: the stalemate brought about between two opponents who are BOTH armed with nuclear weapons, and the possible outcome of "mutual assured destruction" (MAD). In such a case, neither side would be inclined to launch any existential attack (or defense) against their opponent for fear of retaliation by the other. IOW, Israeli deterrence against its neighbors is only effective with the absence of nuclear weapons on the part of their potential enemies in the region. IF Iran were to develop an approximate equal level of nuclear war capability to Israel's, Israel's use of their nuclear weapon advantage becomes useless, because they could not use that capability without the high risk of retaliation against one of the smallest states (geographically) in the region.

And, it is the threat of Iranian nuclear weapon development that leads Israel to align itself with one or the other of the nuclear super-powers (Russia or the U.S.) to act as a credible buffer to a nuclear weapon armed regional opponent (i.e. a potentially nuclear armed Iran). The pursuit of that strategy demands that either the United States or Russia maintain sufficient ground forces and presence in the region (such as Syria or Iraq) to dissuade a massive non-nuclear ground war against Israel.

 

To sum up, then:

1) you've been here a long time, yet

2) you somehow don't know the rules,

3) you insult others in violation of the rules, and,

4) let's note, do not contribute financially to the forum. Not a dime.

If anyone ever wonders whether the internet is a sewer, read this gentleman's posts.

 

Okay boomer.

 

Yes, I noticed that as well but from what I am hearing particularly from Rania Khalek it is not like that. First and something I have not heard of and they are saying is not being reported in the West is that the US have been killing more Iraqi soldiers - I think it is 40 in the past few days. She says

She is asked whether she thinks Iraq can stand up to the US. She talks about Shiites who over the past few decades have gone back and forth working with the US but now they and their groups are moving well away. She says

When you bomb a countries armed forces - the people the US has been killing in the past few days have been the people who fought ISIS - they are seen as heroes and the US is killing them - even despite the anger over how the protests have been met, she says the US actions are uniting the people of Iraq so now there is pressure from the pro Iran people in Iraq to the pro American people to come out against America. She says it is not politically feasable to be politically pro America at this point. Had it been they would have argued to let the US stay. That sounds like she is saying that the people of Iraq are together on this - no room for politicians to go any other way so as she says the US by its actions has made it impossible for anyone in Iraq to be pro US. The US's actions is bringing the people of Iraq together against the US.

Obviously what the West is being told is not at all as the people here know it has been. She says generally the US does not like to stay in a country where they do not have a formal agreement to be (Syria being an exception)...so she is wondering if they will go.

 

Good thing you never had to debate with that Iranian "general" (more like terrorist organizer) then.

 

She's a supporter of Hamas/Hezbollah, so respect for life mustn't be important to her either.

 

Good, then they can see how full of it, you are. The subject was clearly, Iran. As any can see.

 

As they point out in that video that man saved many countries in the ME from now having the black flag of ISIS flying and them suffering under it. Isis supported by the US and Israel.

No, as rules of war and what not go, this man seems to be pretty straight. Now that cannot be said for the Americans can it....but there you go having a go at me because I respect life. It is the people here who do not respect life I do not consider worth much of my time. They have nothing to say anyway just jingoism about how they love people being killed and want to see more of it - in that they of course are just like ISIS.